Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

The front pressure bars on early Baldwin grands are inverted V-shaped brass bars which are movable. The rear aliquots originally had pins in the bottom that fit in holes in the plate, but were later movable. Around 1967, the hitch pins were replaced by vertically mounted roll pins, with the strings held by friction at a height which would allow changing the downbearing on the bridge. This was the Acu-Just system. There were changes in the front bearing system as well, particularly in the SF 11 and SD 10 models, which have adjustable devices which I have never quite figured out.

Like all this other stuff, this was all of mostly dubious value overall, except for the cumulative effect of the Acu-Just pins, but other manufacturers control the downbearing with careful bridge and plate placement. I just don't feel any of it makes so much difference in the sound that if you had one piano with any or all of these things and another without, it would really shout out at you as being a different piano. Not as much as the changes that a good voicer could make, for instance.

[QUOTE] But I’m not going to go looking for it. I already spend way to much time at this—if I spend much more time at this and I’m going to have serious wife problems.

Besides, I do this stuff for a living. At least I try to. I’m willing to set up most any experimental process anyone wants, but I’m not independently wealthy and the nasty problem of earning a living keeps interfering.

Del [/b]

Darn that earning a living thing! Understood. Those of us amateurs who bought grand pianos have already gotten through the wife thing. For better or for worse...

I hereby solemly promise that when I win the powerball in an amount in excess of 100 million dollars. I will set up a piano research play room for Del and others (who pass the application exam - I have to be careful here in case I really do win) to use. And will support their piano research.

In your research Del did you ever determine that a duplex segment sang only because of it's struck segment? Or did you determine they all sing to some extent when any nearby note is played?

Ori - great pix! Thank you for all the work. Very informative. (BTW - I would love to stop by your shop some time.)

Anyhow - duplex, duplex scale, tuneable duplex. Somebody's going to have to write a definitive piano dictionary here. I am still very much of the opinion that any freely vibrating string segment constitutes a duplex. And whether it is in the front or in the rear is a qualifier, and if it is tuneable is a qualifier as well. But I see this is one opinion.

In your research Del did you ever determine that a duplex segment sang only because of it's struck segment? Or did you determine they all sing to some extent when any nearby note is played?

Ori - great pix! Thank you for all the work. Very informative. (BTW - I would love to stop by your shop some time.)

Anyhow - duplex, duplex scale, tunable duplex. Somebody's going to have to write a definitive piano dictionary here. I am still very much of the opinion that any freely vibrating string segment constitutes a duplex. And whether it is in the front or in the rear is a qualifier, and if it is tunable is a qualifier as well. But I see this is one opinion. [/b]

The duplex string segment sings anytime its natural fundamental vibrating mode ends up close to the fundamental, or some partial of that fundamental, and the string deflection angle is small enough to constitute an inefficient termination to the speaking length.

To repeat—energy transfer across the string termination is a function of the shape of the termination point (i.e., usually the V-bar), the string deflection angle, and the length of the duplex string segment.

With one or two notable exceptions, upright pianos rarely, if ever, have string noise problems through the tenor and treble sections even though their string deflection angles across the V-bar are often quite low. And despite the fact that vertical piano V-bars are often very poorly shaped. The reason they do not is because there is a pressure bar very close to that V-bar. The duplex string segment between the V-bar and the pressure bar is very short. Hence the string termination is very efficient despite the shallow string deflection angles typically found here.

Rear duplex string segments do ring in sympathy with vibrating strings some unisons away—they are driven by the vibrating bridge, not by energy bleeding across the bridge (and through the bridge pin offsets). The front duplex string segments are driven by energy bleeding across the V-bar. Hence they are unison specific.

And, while I’m thinking about it—if anyone is interested in doing some experimenting along these lines you must use appropriate materials. In my first round of tests I was not getting nearly the anticipated energy losses that typically accompany this design. Then I realized I was using steel sections for my V-bar/capo tastro bar and tuning pin panel (with the accompanying bearing bar rest). I then changed the test setup using appropriate sections from a broken plate. Once gray iron entered the picture the energy losses appeared. It was only with some combination of a larger string deflection angle and/or a shorter duplex string segment that the energy losses diminished.

Yes, we do need some consistency in terminology when discussing these things. Without it it is all too easy for the salesperson to point generally to the area where all the fancy little bars are located and point out the “duplex scale” to the unwary customer adding nothing of value to the customer’s usable store of information but adding considerably to his or her level of confusion. Of course the salesperson would then have to actually know something about what he or she was talking about and I’ve only met a few who were willing to spend the time to really learn much about the product they were selling.

All three strings of the backscale length must be terminated at the same length(via duplex bridge,or aliquot), and tuned to the same pitch, same with the front, to be a tuned duplex scale. As mentioned previously, the Grotrian/Bösendorfer backscales are not. Each string has a different pitch. This would not be a tuned duplex scale.

Ori
1000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/20/04
Posts: 1704
Loc: Stamford CT, New York City .

Quote:

Originally posted by piqué: i'm still confused.

when our esteemed piano professionals say that the grotrian does not have a duplex scale design, do they mean that the conventional meaning of the term must include aliquots and tuning ability? [/b]

Pique,What I mean by it at least, is that unless the duplex scale segment is tuned to be sympathetic to the speaking part of the string (higher pitch note or a fifth), and unless all three strings of the note are tuned this way...then it isn't what is usually referred to as a duplex scale (although should more accurately be referred to as tuned duplex scale).

_________________________
Ori Bukai - Owner/Founder of Allegro Pianos - New York City and Stamford CT showrooms.

So it seems the discussion is winding down. We are still a bit confused about the proper use of the term duplex, but there is a truce if we use "tuned duplex" and refer to any vibrating string as a duplex segment.

Here is a theoretical brain teaser. What accuracy in placement would be needed for the front aliquot bar on a medium length string (lower treble for instance approximately 24" let's say) in order to tune it to the fundamental?

The string having a length of 24" would have a certain tension. This same tension would exist in the front duplex portion. The front duplex being approximately 4" in length would then need an lenght accuracy of _______ to be a harmonic of the fundamental? If one bar is terminating a group of strings, it must be angled to obtain the proper tuning of all of them for each of their respective speaking length strings. Right? I am still skeptical that there is much to the "tuned" argument, unless you call being "in the general vicinity" tuned.

You should reread my post about the futility of trying to tune these sections. Then realize that 24" is a very long string, somewhere around middle C, in most pianos. Then consider that you need to double the accuracy for each octave you go up the scale.

when our esteemed piano professionals say that the grotrian does not have a duplex scale design, do they mean that the conventional meaning of the term must include aliquots and tuning ability? [/b]

It does have duplex string segments. As I say, all pianos do. Even the lowly upright.

The duplex string segment in the Grotrian is not tuned and, from what I can see in the photographs, the string segments between the V-bar and bearing bar are relatively short. Meaning the system is set up to provide an efficient string termination. Hence, little energy will be lost across the V-bar, leaving more in the speaking portion to be used to produce sound energy.

Originally posted by Grotriman:Here is a theoretical brain teaser. What accuracy in placement would be needed for the front aliquot bar on a medium length string (lower treble for instance approximately 24" let's say) in order to tune it to the fundamental?

The string having a length of 24" would have a certain tension. This same tension would exist in the front duplex portion. The front duplex being approximately 4" in length would then need an length accuracy of _______ to be a harmonic of the fundamental? If one bar is terminating a group of strings, it must be angled to obtain the proper tuning of all of them for each of their respective speaking length strings. Right? I am still skeptical that there is much to the "tuned" argument, unless you call being "in the general vicinity" tuned. [/b]

To be tuned to the fundamental the duplex string segment would also have to be 24" long. But, they are not tuned to the fundamental (except sometimes in the very high treble). They are supposedly tuned to some partial of the fundamental.

And therein lies one of the problems with the system. Accuracy aside, the only way to set these things up so that they are properly tuned and keep them there is to somehow negate friction across both the V-bar and the bearing bar. Unless this can be done—and in the real world it is impossible—they will end up out of tune no matter how precisely the length is set. And it is when they end up slightly out of tune that the dissonant string howls set in that some poor tuner then has to figure out how to deal with.

This is a point BDB brought up some time back and it’s a very real, very common and very practical point that shouldn’t get lost in all the theoretical talk that is being tossed about. Assuming the tuner is able to get them in tune well enough to get rid of the howls, how long will they stay in tune and how long will the howls stay gone? Who knows? Unless the string tensions are exactly equalized through every segment of the string—and they rarely are—it will only be until some hard hammer blow upsets things enough for the string to render slightly across the V-bar. After enough of this the tuner ends up being asked to mute the bloody things out—the additional loss of sustain being less bad than putting up with the dissonant string howls.

Steinway back duplex segment. The aliquots are in long segments and can actually be moved very little.

The duplex segment of the strings is relatively short in comparison to the individually tunable segments on the Mason and Estonia. [/b]

Yes, they are. And that is one of the difficulties with this particular design. The backscale is short enough to impede, or restrict, the motion of the soundboard assembly. Particularly in the top section.

Simply removing the bearing bar casting and either replacing it with a brass half-round of appropriate diameter placed as close to the hitchpins as possible or (even better) leaving the half-round out and installing vertical hitches close to the original hitchpin locations (keeping string bearing approximately the same as teh original) noticeably improves the upper tenor/treble response.

An interesting note is that the Grotrian also has a segment between the tuning pin and the plate that rings very loudly. So much so that before I had my hammers voiced, I needed to mute 3 or four strings segments.

After voicing the piano sounds much better with them vibrating. They are a third duplex segment in the chain.

I myself am in total agreement with Del. A tuned duplex is perhaps an ideal, but not realizable condition.

There is a rather famous technician in NYC (she is psychic about pianos) who insists (I hear) on removing most damping materials period to get the best sound out of a Steinway.

Simply removing the bearing bar casting and either replacing it with a brass half-round of appropriate diameter placed as close to the hitchpins as possible or (even better) leaving the half-round out and installing vertical hitches close to the original hitchpin locations (keeping string bearing approximately the same as teh original) noticeably improves the upper tenor/treble response.

Actually, if this is what you want to do, the easiest solution may be simply to move the casting back as far as possible, since it is easier to keep one of those castings in place near the hitchpins than a bunch of individual half-rounds. (Tensioning strings on these aliquots tends to move them forward from the hitchpins.)

Simply removing the bearing bar casting and either replacing it with a brass half-round of appropriate diameter placed as close to the hitchpins as possible or (even better) leaving the half-round out and installing vertical hitches close to the original hitchpin locations (keeping string bearing approximately the same as the original) noticeably improves the upper tenor/treble response.

Actually, if this is what you want to do, the easiest solution may be simply to move the casting back as far as possible, since it is easier to keep one of those castings in place near the hitchpins than a bunch of individual half-rounds. (Tensioning strings on these aliquots tends to move them forward from the hitchpins.) [/b]

Yes, we do that too. But there is a limit as to how far it can be moved. Some of those backscales are pretty short. In any case, we don’t use individual half-rounds. We use a continuous strip. Or several of them—whichever is appropriate to the specific piano at hand.

Ori
1000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/20/04
Posts: 1704
Loc: Stamford CT, New York City .

In a PROPERLY DESIGNED tunable duplex system, such as those that I work with every day, there are no howls and the aliquots are not moving anywhere at least not in any meaningful way.They may need to move and howl in theory, but in the real world they don’t.I also never found the need to mute anything in these duplexes due to a howl.By changing the aliquots size and position I can increase or decrease the amount of ring or “sizzle” to where I like it to be…and this is why I like the system.

I guess that most designers of high-end instruments have either different theories then some of the theories we heard on this thread, or different solutions then anyone writing on this thread found. After all, they decided to incorporate this system into their pianos, and these pianos sound by most accounts very good. Suggesting that some of the worlds premier designers have done this, knowing that it is not only inefficient but can actually be detracting from the performance of the instrument, just that it can be used as a “sales feature" is ridiculous. I wouldn't except from anyone in the industry to sell his or her knowledgeable piers so short.

The results in high-end pianos using tuned and tunable duplex scale segments speak for themselves and readers that were lucky enough to play on these instruments rarely refer to them as “howling” while reporting back.

I believe that a system that isn’t properly designed and executed can be less effective, and may even hinder the performance of the piano as suggested. I guess that for this reason tunable duplex segments are usually not found on lower end pianos, but only on some of the higher end instruments. In any case, the use of a PROPERLY designed and executed system among high end manufacturers seem to only grow.

_________________________
Ori Bukai - Owner/Founder of Allegro Pianos - New York City and Stamford CT showrooms.

Originally posted by Ori: Chris W,Among the many pianos I have here there is also a 1980's Baldwin L. This one has different duplexes then what you describe. The front is fixed/un-tunable and a part of the plate.The back is not a duplex scale at all and is nothing like the Steinway D picture that curry posted.If you'd like then post pictures of your piano to verify that the models are different and that there isn't any misunderstanding here. [/b]

If I ever get enough time, I'll try to pictures. But if memory serves me correctly, my older L is indeed different from the newer L's w.r.t. string termination, at least in the back. I'll try to post something soon...

I guess that most designers of high-end instruments have either different theories then some of the theories we heard on this thread, or different solutions then anyone writing on this thread found. After all, they decided to incorporate this system into their pianos, and these pianos sound by most accounts very good.

Most pianos these days sound very good. It's harder to find a bad new piano than a good one. They may sound different, and one person may prefer one over another. which is a good thing. But the difference between the average piano and the extremes has probably never been so small before. In order to say "My piano is so much better than those other pianos that you should ignore your ear, your touch, and your pocketbook and buy my piano!" one needs to force a prospect to concentrate on smaller and more meaningless details, like whether there are duplex scales or not, whether a piano's wood is seasoned one way or another, whether it is made in China, Europe, the USA, or Timbuktu, or whatever. It's nothing but hype!

Frankly, I don't believe any dealer would sell an old Steinway or new Baldwin without tuned duplexes for less money than one the same model a year apart that had them. If you lined up a dozen pairs of these models you could get anyone, no matter how sophisticated they may be in piano tone, to tell which was which without looking. That's why I think that it's nothing but advertising.

Originally posted by Ori: In a PROPERLY DESIGNED tunable duplex system, such as those that I work with every day, there are no howls and the aliquots are not moving anywhere at least not in any meaningful way.They may need to move and howl in theory, but in the real world they don’t.I also never found the need to mute anything in these duplexes due to a howl.By changing the aliquots size and position I can increase or decrease the amount of ring or “sizzle” to where I like it to be…and this is why I like the system.

I guess that most designers of high-end instruments have either different theories then some of the theories we heard on this thread, or different solutions then anyone writing on this thread found. After all, they decided to incorporate this system into their pianos, and these pianos sound by most accounts very good. Suggesting that some of the worlds premier designers have done this, knowing that it is not only inefficient but can actually be detracting from the performance of the instrument, just that it can be used as a “sales feature" is ridiculous. I wouldn't except from anyone in the industry to sell his or her knowledgeable piers so short.

The results in high-end pianos using tuned and tunable duplex scale segments speak for themselves and readers that were lucky enough to play on these instruments rarely refer to them as “howling” while reporting back.

I believe that a system that isn’t properly designed and executed can be less effective, and may even hinder the performance of the piano as suggested. I guess that for this reason tunable duplex segments are usually not found on lower end pianos, but only on some of the higher end instruments. In any case, the use of a PROPERLY designed and executed system among high end manufacturers seem to only grow. [/b]

But, Ori, in the real world miss-tuned aliquot string segments do howl. And buzz. And jangle. And whatever. That is not just my experience, it is the experience of hundreds, if not thousands of technicians across the land. It has been a problem for generations of piano owners and technicians alike.

And the problem is not that the aliquot bars are moving, the problem is that when pianos are tuned the strings do not render perfectly across the various bearing points. The result is simply that no matter how carefully you set them in the factory (or in your shop) the tensions—and, hence, the pitch—of the tuned aliquot string segments is no longer going to be at the pitch you so carefully set.

You do go on about the designers of these high-end pianos you work on. I guess I have less faith in their design process than you do. You seem to believe that there is a lot of comparative research and development going on. I, on the other hand, do not. You see, I’ve been in some of these factories as well. And, while I do believe there is a lot of good engineering and refinement taking place I do not believe there is much in the way of fundamental R&D happening.

As just one example, one of the high-end pianos mentioned in this topic—and which I will not further identify—has its origins back in a defunct German piano factory. True, under its current ownership and name it has been refined and engineered well beyond any level its original makers dreamed of but it is still essentially the same instrument it started out to be. Yes, the aliquot string segments have been made adjustable but not tests have been conducted to discover whether or not there may be a better way. This is the way high-end piano makers do these things and that is that. End of discussion.

And, I guess, unlike you, I have indeed heard some of these aliquot string segments the whistle and howl in any number of so-called high-end pianos. Both in showrooms and at industry trade shows. The only exceptions are those systems that are designed to look like tuned aliquot systems but which, do to the sharper string angles involved and the relatively short duplex string segments, do not function as such. That is, despite their appearance the string termination is efficient enough to prevent much of any energy bleed across the termination point. Otherwise these problems are inherent in the system whether we want to acknowledge them or not. I agree that with careful adjustment and tweaking they can be temporarily eliminated. But experience proves that these problems all to often come back. And if the technician is either not experienced enough to deal with them, or if the piano owner is unwilling to pay for the time involved, the problems I have described do appear in even the most beautifully and “properly” designed system.

Ori
1000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/20/04
Posts: 1704
Loc: Stamford CT, New York City .

Quote:

Originally posted by Grotriman: Ori - I'm heading up I-95 from NYC and hit Stamford. Then what do I do to get to your showroom? [/b]

Grotriman,Best thing is to call for directions on the phone.It will be faster for you to take the Hutchinson/Merritt Parkway than the 95 as we are very close to Bedford and Armonk, NY.Best thing is to call for directions on the phone, this way I can also make sure that I'll be here when you want to come.

Del,You made some points that I'd like relate to, but don't have much time now.I'll post later though...

_________________________
Ori Bukai - Owner/Founder of Allegro Pianos - New York City and Stamford CT showrooms.

Ori
1000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/20/04
Posts: 1704
Loc: Stamford CT, New York City .

Posted by Del:

Quote:

But, Ori, in the real world miss-tuned aliquot string segments do howl. And buzz. And jangle. And whatever. That is not just my experience, it is the experience of hundreds, if not thousands of technicians across the land. It has been a problem for generations of piano owners and technicians alike.[/b]

And also:

Quote:

I have indeed heard some of these aliquot string segments the whistle and howl in any number of so-called high-end pianos. Both in showrooms and at industry trade shows[/b]

Del,Obviously my experience is different then yours.Now you say that it is the experience of hundreds and not just yours... Well, you may think for some reason that you can speak for hundreds but you really shouldn't, please just speak for yourself.

Deric, Which would be the term you'd use to describe the treble of your Bosendorfer Imperial concert grand? You know...the one with the tuned duplex scale segment? Would you say that it's howling and buzzing as Del suggests?You must consider your piano a real problem don't you? With all this sustain robbing duplex, the whistles and howls that it must have. Indeed Deric, you are a selfish person. By purchasing this problematic instrument you created a problem not just for you, but also for the generations to come.

Now what about all of you that own Mason & Hamlin pianos? Those buzzing and howling instruments (due to their tunable duplexes) must really frustrate you and must be a big problem. To all readers that played Mason & Hamlin pianos during your piano search...now you know why they were all whistling so bad.

What about the new C.bechstein pianos? Anyone tried these? Surly the first thought that came to anyone’s mind playing them was.."oh my, these horrific sounds, this piano is howling so bad it will likely be a huge problem as these duplexes will keep on jangling.

And what about Fazioli? This shameless Italian piano dared using those tunable duplex segments and now it's howling and buzzing all over. What was the designer thinking??? He should have checked the writings here for advice before presenting the world with this whistling problem.

Now does anyone here on this forum ever heard of the Estonia piano? The designers of this piano must have also been stupid, inexperienced and negligent enough to use tunable duplexes. What a shame, it probably could have been a nice piano had they just followed the advice they can read on this forum. Time after time I see people play the Estonia and whistle along with the howls...

Schimmel and Seiler? They just redesigned their instruments to include these nasty sustain robbing features. They must be sitting now, grabbing their heads by their hands wondering...why did we do it? Consumers must sitting in front of our pianos and all they hear is a loud howl, mixed with some buzzes and the aliquots will be jangling for the next generations to suffer.

But the prize has to go to Bluthner. After more then 150 years of piano making in this family they still didn't figure out that they need to consult with Del before getting these front duplexes to howl as they probably do?Some must have confused the Bluthner's sound with the whistles of a train engine.

What a shame.

Well, to all the readers that ever played any, few or all of these instruments, if the first thing that came to your mind was..." SSHHHOOOOO, this piano has a nasty howl" then now you know why it is so.

If your thoughts were different though, at least while playing some of these pianos, then maybe you'll figure out that one should talk for himself and not for thousands of others

By the way, in the real world I often find buzzing and ringing A graffs, should we eliminate all these too?

Del wrote also:

Quote:

The result is simply that no matter how carefully you set them in the factory (or in your shop) the tensions—and, hence, the pitch—of the tuned aliquot string segments is no longer going to be at the pitch you so carefully set.[/b]

Not on the pianos I work with and not by my experience. Maybe you should get out of the shop more and work regularly on some of the modern instruments I mentioned before. Do it for few years and then come back and offer an opinion to whether the aliquots “jangle” or not. I did just that and my opinion, which is based on real life experience, is completely the opposite of yours.

Then you wrote:

Quote:

You do go on about the designers of these high-end pianos you work on. I guess I have less faith in their design process than you do. You seem to believe that there is a lot of comparative research and development going on. I, on the other hand, do not. You see, I’ve been in some of these factories as well. And, while I do believe there is a lot of good engineering and refinement taking place I do not believe there is much in the way of fundamental R&D happening.

[/b]

The reason I bring these high-end pianos and their designers, is because they hold an opinion very different then yours. I also know of quite a bit of research and development that's going on.Experimenting with different materials and design elements, as well as using (god forbid) computer programs to enhance performance.Not all companies, as you might know, are eager to share the solutions they found for certain problems with the rest of the industry. Some of them will expect other companies to come up with their own solutions.

I can only guess that part of the problem is that you refuse to believe that others have found solutions to problems that you thought can't be solved.

Please understand that I fully respect you and your knowledge as a designer, yet I'm not a designer but a finisher. I look at things from the other side of the process. I look at the result of the finished piano and what I can do with it as a tech and a pianist. Also, by being both a dealer and a tech ( and probably also because I ask too many questions) some of the companies I work with have confided in me and shared some of their solutions and processes. I can tell you that in spite of your knowledge, I found on more then just this occasion that you are limited by your own experience and conclude that the way you know is the ONLY way.

You have made remarks in the past about other subjects that although may be "universally" true, were completely wrong when used in context to the piano discussed as it was implementing an entirely different process which obviously you had no idea about.

You may not except that there are other ways of doing things then yours, but I believe that there are.If you were absolutely right all the time and there were no other ways, then everyone would prefer the pianos designed by you and recognize their superiority to any other instrument.But since many seem to prefer pianos other then the CW of your design, you should at least consider the possibility that this isn't a black and white issue and that other knowledgeable designers truly feel differently then you.

When people listen to the finish product, all the theoretical explanations fly out the window anyway as it is the performance that counts in this regard.

So when Mason & Hamlin, Fazioli or Bluthner will ask you to design their next instrument, I'm sure you'll design it without duplexes.Until this happens though, please respect the designers of these pianos and the possibility that they have different opinions then yours.I won't underestimate the knowledge of these designers even if they don't post in detail on this forum regarding the way they solved the (unsolvable by you?) theoretical problems you presented.

By all accounts they're making pretty good pianos.

_________________________
Ori Bukai - Owner/Founder of Allegro Pianos - New York City and Stamford CT showrooms.

fwiw, lots of techs have told me the same things that del has written here. and i think del is in a very good position to know what hundreds of other techs think, as he is regularly giving presentations to conventions of piano techs around the world. he's also been involved in surveying hundreds of other techs on their opinions, as i recall.

ori, before you go casting stones, what is your pedigree as a technician? where did you study? are you a member of the ptg? do you go to their conventions and take their professional courses and mingle with lots of other technicians on a regular basis as del does? how long have you been a piano technician?

talk to any tech who services these high end pianos on an ongoing basis for conservatories, recording studios, and concert halls (but who doesn't sell them for a living) and i bet you'll hear pretty much what del has described. plenty can and does go haywire with high end pianos if they aren't maintained by high end techs.

Ori
1000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/20/04
Posts: 1704
Loc: Stamford CT, New York City .

Pique,Here again you try to come to Del's defense when he doesn't really need you.I'm casting stones at no one, but only stating my opinion as he states his. Whatever my skills and experience as a tech are, rest assure that they are far greater then yours...yet your qualification has got nothing to do with your right to post what ever you've "heard" from techs. So post it and stay focused on the subject instead of trying to get personal.The first line of your post wasI have worked on THOUSANDS of high end pianos, the vast majority of them have tuned duplex system of one sort or another and formed my opinions based on this experience, as well as many conversations with some of the most knowledgeable technicians and designers in the industry.

We have plenty of piano owners here that have, or that tried pianos with these systems, and since it was claimed that duplex scale segments are a "problem for generations" I invited them to post their impressions of their pianos.

By the way, I too have seen duplexes that can ring for certain reasons. I have seen rings and buzzes from many other parts of pianos too. My approach is usually to find the source of the problem and correct it rather then say that the whole thing is bad...and it works very well.I also don't see duplex segments on high-end pianos needing adjustments needing adjustment all the time and I work mainly on high end pianos.

This is the second time Pique you tried to turn this informative thread, where different approaches are presented, to some kind of a flame war and for no reason.

I appreciate Del's posts and contribution to this forum tremendously and respect him as a designer. I also respect other designer’s ability and the results of their work, and don't have to agree automatically with one person or another.

_________________________
Ori Bukai - Owner/Founder of Allegro Pianos - New York City and Stamford CT showrooms.

Well, it hardly matters whether different designers have different opinions on duplex systems. Fazioli and Mason & Hamlin have different opinions from Blüthner! After all, they still only have at most three strings per note. Given that disparity, there's no way they could all agree with yet another designer on the subject!

But as a practical question, Ori, can you tell me what the difference in sound is between the old Blüthner aliquot system with the bridge agraffes and half-length strings and the new system? Has the amount of sustain changed? How much? Are they richer in harmonics? If so, which ones? Or could you tell us the same differences between the sound of the new Imperial and the old one, or the Schimmel, or the Seiler?

Could you pass my test? If you went into another store, and came across two of the old kind and two of the new kind, could you, without looking, tell which was which just from the sound? Because the question is not whether having duplexes changes the sustain or harmonics. The question is whether the changes in the sound are significant. Because if they are not, they are just there for the hype.